In response to two previous posts about the FAA's plan to flight-test every different electronic device -- Kindle, Kindle 2, iPad, iPad2, nook, Bose A15, Bose A20 -- on every different aircraft model from every single airline before deciding whether the ban on such devices is necessary, readers with a tech background weigh in. ("Kindle in Flight" image from Karen LeRosier.)

From a Westerner in China:

Something doesn't seem right about the methodology the FAA is using to
test for interference from devices. I work in the Medical Device
industry (highly regulated, as is the aerospace industry) and have taken
several devices through the electronic emissions testing process . The
way it works today is that you must test to see if a device is affected
by emissions from other devices (susceptibility) and if it can affect
other devices (emissions). Of course, you can't test your device in
every possible environment, nor would you want to as there may always
be situations you didn't anticipate. Yet that is the way the FAA seems
to be proposing testing the Kindles and so forth.

Here's the way it works in the real world. Manufacturers adhere to a
testing regimen agreed upon by a recognized standards body. For
emissions they provide a curve that shows allowable energy levels at all
frequencies and you have to demonstrate that in all possible use cases
for your device (booting up, charging, running the processor at 100%,
etc) you fall below that curve at every point. On the susceptibility
side (the airplane in this case) the standards body provides a different
curve which dictates a broadcast pattern at all frequencies. You have
to demonstrate that your device doesn't malfunction dangerously when
subjected to these emissions.

So, if the FAA wanted to come up with a new emissions standards, all the
manufacturers would rush to demonstrate compliance or to re-engineer to
achieve compliance. The susceptibility side is more difficult, because
in this case we are bringing the emitters inside the device (the
airplane). But I could conceive of an agreed upon standard testing
regimen which, coupled with the appropriate emissions standard, could
demonstrate safe and effective use (that last is a FDA Medical Device
term and I'm sure there is an FAA equivalent to it).

From a reader in the math/tech world:

This is all unbelievably silly. Shouldn't planes be made safe enough so
that one silly kindle couldn't bring them down? This is (obviously) the
way to test them:

1. Take a healthy representative sample of the devices out there.2. Look at the kinds of radiation they produce.3. Find some kind of maximal radiation that they could produce under any circumstances.4. Ask the manufacturers if we've missed any wavelengths/frequencies/strengths and update the radiation profiles as required.5. Certify the planes for that (upgrading any shielding as required).6.
Insist all new devices stay under those limits to be "airplane safe"
(much like the certification they receive now for other purposes).7. If for some reason a new device comes along that needs to produce more or different kinds of radiation then repeat 1-6.

End of problem. Still pretty expensive and time consuming (and probably unnecessary), but at least doable.

From another person in the software/tech world:

The idea of testing every device belies the policy's mis-purpose. There is not - for all practical purposes - a finite list of electronic devices with on-off switches. The long-tail of lesser-spotted devices is gigantic, practically impossible to collect and test, and paradoxically the the very place where a RF-mis-behaving device will likely be found, if any such exist.

Why? because you can be damn sure that the engineers who designed all the greater-spotted devices (and the FCC regulated) are not giving away any of their precious battery juice to random RF. If an RF-mis-behaving device exists, it's probably some random widget manufactured in small numbers outside the US/EU, and not subject to RF testing/regulation.

So presuming some testing of 'top 100' devices takes places, it will be yet another piece of theater - doing little to detect the real threat, if it exists at all.

All of this, of course, in light of fact that the real rule - for all practical purposes - is that devices should be out of sight, not turned-off

From a reader in the South Pacific:

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it patently obvious that electronic devices cannot possibly bring down an airliner? After all, if it were possible it would have been done a long time ago. All that would be necessary is to fill up the cabin with would-be terrorists with cell phones, Kindles, iPads, etc. and have them turn them all on as soon as the captain announces "Flight attendants, please take your seats." A lot easier and less messy than stuffing your shorts with incendiary devices.

By the way, you probably know that the "Mythbusters" guys tested this premise a few years ago with an extremely powerful radio transmitter in the cockpit of a plane and found no interference whatsoever with the plane's systems. At the end of the program I was hoping they'd say "Well, this dispells any idea that an iPhone can bring down a 777", but they wimped out and said "Well, we found it can't be done, but we still recommend turning everything off."

And, on the other hand, from a reader in mainland America who is also in the tech world:

Although I personally agree that the rule is stupid and agree with the empirical observation that it's been violated endlessly with no crashed attributed to it, I will take issue with your reader who wrote: "My Kindle and my MP3 player are both have 'FFC approved' symbols."

I believe you have already commented in your blog that just because the design meets FCC regs, it doesn't mean that every unit still meets the regs while it's in the consumer's hands on the aircraft. I have a microwave over that knocks out my satellite internet when cooking at high power. No doubt FCC approved, but it clearly impacts communications devices. I have no idea if the oven is non-conforming, the satellite system is non-conforming, or if the standards aren't tight enough.

This brings to mind the issue of Lightsquared, which is trying to create a national broadband network. They own spectrum adjacent to the GPS spectrum. Tests show they will knock-out most consumer devices. It turns out that the receivers don't conform to the standards for rejecting noise from adjacent spectrum. The problem is not with the broadcast signal, or at least that's my reading of the latest round of this battle. The point is that perhaps your laptop is does meet FCC standards, but that still doesn't mean that it won't interfere (let alone the issue of your laptop plus everyone else's RF emitting device all jammed inside a big reflector.)

My own beliefs are closest to the "reader in the South Pacific," but the suggestions before that make sense to me. Still, I'm not holding my breath for a change. And meantime, with millions of miles of commercial air travel over the decades, I am still waiting for the first time any member of a flight cabin crew checks to see if mobile phones are actually turned off. Some day it may occur!

About the Author

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne.

Most Popular

About 10 years ago, after I’d graduated college but when I was still waitressing full-time, I attended an empowerment seminar. It was the kind of nebulous weekend-long event sold as helping people discover their dreams and unburden themselves from past trauma through honesty exercises and the encouragement to “be present.” But there was one moment I’ve never forgotten. The group leader, a man in his 40s, asked anyone in the room of 200 or so people who’d been sexually or physically abused to raise their hands. Six or seven hands tentatively went up. The leader instructed us to close our eyes, and asked the question again. Then he told us to open our eyes. Almost every hand in the room was raised.

And there could be far-reaching consequences for the national economy too.

Four floors above a dull cinder-block lobby in a nondescript building at the Ohio State University, the doors of a slow-moving elevator open on an unexpectedly futuristic 10,000-square-foot laboratory bristling with technology. It’s a reveal reminiscent of a James Bond movie. In fact, the researchers who run this year-old, $750,000 lab at OSU’s Spine Research Institute resort often to Hollywood comparisons.

Thin beams of blue light shoot from 36 of the same kind of infrared motion cameras used to create lifelike characters for films like Avatar. In this case, the researchers are studying the movements of a volunteer fitted with sensors that track his skeleton and muscles as he bends and lifts. Among other things, they say, their work could lead to the kind of robotic exoskeletons imagined in the movie Aliens.

Four decades ago Jimmy Carter was sworn in as the 39th president of the U.S., the original Star Wars movie was released in theaters, and much more.

Four decades ago Jimmy Carter was sworn in as the 39th president of the United States, the original Star Wars movie was released in theaters, the Trans-Alaska pipeline pumped its first barrels of oil, New York City suffered a massive blackout, Radio Shack introduced its new TRS-80 Micro Computer, Grace Jones was a disco queen, the Brazilian soccer star Pele played his “sayonara” game in Japan, and much more. Take a step into a visual time capsule now, for a brief look at the year 1977.

In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the timeline: before the 2016 election, and after.

Things we thought we understood—narratives, data, software, news events—have had to be reinterpreted in light of Donald Trump’s surprising win as well as the continuing questions about the role that misinformation and disinformation played in his election.

Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic, and elsewhere: Facebook’s enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information spheres, the increasing scourge of “viral” hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks, and the Russian information ops agency.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

The foundation of Donald Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy.

It is insufficient to statethe obvious of Donald Trump: that he is a white man who would not be president were it not for this fact. With one immediate exception, Trump’s predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness—that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them. Land theft and human plunder cleared the grounds for Trump’s forefathers and barred others from it. Once upon the field, these men became soldiers, statesmen, and scholars; held court in Paris; presided at Princeton; advanced into the Wilderness and then into the White House. Their individual triumphs made this exclusive party seem above America’s founding sins, and it was forgotten that the former was in fact bound to the latter, that all their victories had transpired on cleared grounds. No such elegant detachment can be attributed to Donald Trump—a president who, more than any other, has made the awful inheritance explicit.

How a seemingly innocuous phrase became a metonym for the skewed sexual politics of show business

The chorus of condemnation against Harvey Weinstein, as dozens of women have come forward to accuse the producer of serial sexual assault and harassment, has often turned on a quaint-sounding show-business cliché: the “casting couch.” Glenn Close, for instance, expressed her anger that “the ‘casting couch’ phenomenon, so to speak, is still a reality in our business and in the world.”

The casting couch—where, as the story goes, aspiring actresses had to trade sexual favors in order to win roles—has been a familiar image in Hollywood since the advent of the studio system in the 1920s and ’30s. Over time, the phrase has become emblematic of the way that sexual aggression has been normalized in an industry dominated by powerful men.

A driver, a transportation official, and a transit advocate explain why Seattle recently saw one of the biggest citywide increases in passenger numbers.

Almost every major U.S. city has seen years of decline in bus ridership, but Seattle has been the exception in recent years. Between 2010 and 2014, Seattle experienced the biggest jump of any major U.S. city. At its peak in 2015, around 78,000 people, or about one in five Seattle workers, rode the bus to work.

That trend has cooled slightly since then, but Seattle continues to see increased overall transit ridership, bucking the national trend of decline. In 2016, Seattle saw transit ridership increase by 4.1 percent—only Houston and Milwaukee saw even half that increase in the same year.

Bus service is crucial to reducing emissions in the Seattle region. According to King County Metro, which serves the region, nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions in Washington state come from transportation and its operation displaces roughly four times as many emissions as it generates, by taking cars off the road and reducing traffic congestion. The public transit authority has been recognized for its commitment to sustainability and its bus fleet is projected to be 100 percent hybrid or electric by 2018.

The president managed to cause a brief firestorm by falsely accusing predecessors of neglecting slain soldiers, but real answers about why four men were killed are still elusive.

On October 4, four American Special Forces soldiers were killed during an operation in Niger. Since then, the White House has been notably tight-lipped about the incident. During a press conference Monday afternoon, 12 days after the deaths, President Trump finally made his first public comments, but the remarks—in which he admitted he had not yet spoken with the families and briefly attacked Barack Obama—did little to clarify what happened or why the soldiers were in Niger.

Trump spoke at the White House after a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and was asked why he hadn’t spoken about deaths of Sergeant La David Johnson and Staff Sergeants Bryan Black, Dustin Wright, and Jeremiah Johnson.

For the first time, astronomers have detected visible light and gravitational waves from the same source, ushering in a new era in our attempt to understand the cosmos.

In September of 2015, astronomers detected, for the first time, gravitational waves, cosmic ripples that distort the very fabric of space and time. They came from a violent merger of two black holes somewhere in the universe, more than a billion light-years away from Earth. Astronomers observed the phenomenon again in December, and then again in November 2016, and then again in August of this year. The discoveries confirmed a century-old prediction by Albert Einstein, earned a Nobel prize, and ushered in a new field of astronomy.

But while astronomers could observe the effects of the waves in the sensitive instruments built to detect them, they couldn’t see the source. Black holes, as their name suggests, don’t emit any light. To directly observe the origin of gravitational waves, astronomers needed a different kind of collision to send the ripples Earth’s way. This summer, they finally got it.